I still remember the first time I began reading Man and Woman in Christ, many years ago now. I felt edified, considered, and necessary as a woman. Truths I had believed but didn’t understand and certainly could not explain began to make sense. New and inspiring ideas that would form how I understood manhood and womanhood opened a door into deepening purposefulness, beauty, and integration which would set me on a course of joyful response to God’s call on my life as a woman. To say the least, Man and Woman in Christ has been a game-changer for my personal ‘yes’ to the Lord, and to His people. It has built within me an intellectual foundation and a scripturally sound vision for a Christian approach to manhood and womanhood, without which I would probably to this day be struggling in my pursuit to live as a daughter of God.
I am honored by this opportunity to share a few thoughts which reveal Steve Clark, displayed in his work Man and Woman in Christ, as a man who spent a great deal of his intellectual energy teaching and defending the value of women, recognizing the need for a vision for the Christian people that is scripturally sound, simple, and united with the Christian tradition. Steve shows a shrewd understanding of the insecure and divided notions about manhood and womanhood in our age. His exegesis and accompanying insights unpack and challenge these notions, reminding us which truths have stood the test of time, and clarifying how to understand the scriptural texts in the light of their proper contexts.
Steve’s scriptural exegesis in Man and Woman in Christ freed me to value femininity, while at the same time liberating me from believing countless ideas which the world presents about women: that women are less important or less capable, that women are weaker, and that women have smaller capacity for character than men. This work freed me from any need to compete with men, or compare my productivity to that of men. It freed me from many stereotypes of what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a man. It freed me from feeling like I need to accept the age-old adage that ‘boys will be boys’ and accept low expectations for the men with whom I share life. It freed me from the fear that there are not good men out there, men who are worthy to be husbands and heads of family and leaders of people. (It also freed me from prideful thinking that I would make a great wife without immense help from the Lord and from others.)
This work freed me for a vision of manhood and womanhood that is good, beautiful, and harmonious: to pursue intentional relationships within the body of Christ with hope and trust; to desire Christian marriage and to see it is a good thing as God designed it; to desire to serve within the Christian community; to learn the irreplaceable contribution that women are designed to make; to serve in leadership and to be able to embrace the way of life I believed God had already called me to.
Although I could name many more, I will share three topics that have been a source of this freedom, three key notes of Man and Women in Christ to which I return again and again for my own sense of confidence, for my continued receptivity to the Lord’s will, and in my pastoral and teaching work. They are the clear sense of the dignity of women, Steve’s treatment of subordination in the marriage relationship, and finally, his insistence on the irreplaceable role of women in the family.
The Clear Sense of the Dignity of Woman
In his work, Man and Woman in Christ, Steve Clark highlights and defends the dignity of women. His work both assumes women’s dignity but also explains it, tirelessly, patiently. It seems he knows not to assume all Christians and intellectuals who live during his time will assume it, and therefore he explains it again and again, reminding his reader not to forget what is clear and consistent in the Scriptures and God’s intention for the family and society. I will mention a few instances from his scriptural exegesis which display this.
First, Steve establishes the unquestionable equality in personal value and dignity between men and women from Scripture. He points out and unpacks misunderstandings of how people have used lines from Scripture to degrade women, to misunderstand their dignity, and clarifies the true meaning and re-establishes the dignity of women as a necessary foundation for all he will say afterward.
One example is Steve’s treatment of Genesis 2:22: “And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”2 While some have used this verse in a mocking way toward women, Steve highlights the scholarship that shows it means that woman is made of the same substance as man and stands by his side,
The context of Genesis 2 shows that the overriding significance of the mode of the creation of woman is that woman is the same kind of being as man, not a different and inferior species…. The clearest point to be drawn from the building of woman from man’s rib is not any inferiority on woman’s part but quite the contrary. The “rib” indicates the sameness of nature between man and woman (11).
Steve clarifies here that woman shares her nature, value, and dignity with man—they are of the same kind—and that woman is not below man. When you come to know that this is God’s firm design, it is easier to trust His good will for your life as a woman, rather than juggling the ever lingering questions: Did God make me inferior to men? Is it my job to prove my worth?
In my years working with university aged women, I’ve met few women who haven’t had to wrestle with these questions. Every year I find myself working with a handful or more of young adult women who battle basic identity questions and lies daily. It is not always clear to them that, as women, they share the same dignity as men. Simply growing up in our society has done enough to deeply undermine, within their sense of self, the truth that it is good that God made them to be women— that men and women have equal dignity and eternal value.
In the same section, Steve proceeds to clarify the true meaning of the Hebrew word for “to cling” or “to cleave” in order to establish the strength of the marriage relationship. “The word ‘cling’ or ‘cleave’ indicates a committed personal relationship. It does not mean weak dependence, as the English word, ‘clings’ suggests” (11). The modern usage, “Gosh, that woman is so clingy” is far from the correct sense. Instead this word conveys a mutual and purposeful interdependence between man and woman, an expression of the fundamental reality that “it is not good for man to be alone,” and that they each have something to contribute that the other needs.
A third instance makes clear that woman, being an image bearer of God like man, shares in the commission with man to have dominion over the living creatures. Her role is that of helper to the man in his ruling function, not to be ruled by him like the other animals.
Nothing in Genesis 1:26-31 indicates that women do not take part in the commission associated with being in God’s image, namely, having dominion over the living creatures. Rather, the fact that the commission is repeated in v. 28 following the statement about the human race being created male and female indicates that women share not only the commission but also the image of God which makes the commission possible (9).
These are a few of many ways in which Steve breaks down the meaning of the Scriptures to establish the inherent value of woman and her basic relationship to man as sharing in the same dignity: according to God’s purpose in creation, she is created and called to be an image bearer of the Living God to the rest of creation.
Although the church has always taught that men and women are equal in dignity, each new age seems to bring its own way of forgetting and distorting this profound truth. Steve’s voice has been one in our time to point out and make clear the dignity of women and their irreplaceable role in the world. I am grateful to Steve for the time and care he has put into his work which grounds the dignity of women in the word of God as a challenge to those in the world who would like to put women’s dignity up for debate.
And yet his affirmation of the fundamental equality of men and women does not prevent Steve from clearly speaking about their differences in an illuminating way. Because men and women are equal in dignity, their differences can function together in a complementary way.
In some ways, the term “complementarity” best sums up the relationship between the man and the woman in Genesis.
“Complementarity” implies an equality, a correspondence between man and woman. It also implies a difference. Woman complements man in a way that makes her a helper to him. Her role is not identical to his. Their complementarity allows them to be a partnership in which each needs the other, because each provides something different from what the other provides. The partnership of man and woman is based upon a community of nature and an interdependence due to a complementarity of role (13).
A common tactic that claims to uphold the value of women is to affirm that women are just as good as men—there are no differences except perhaps for the obvious differences of sexual organs. But saying that women are valuable because they can (and should) do the same things men can do does not attribute any value to women as women—men are still the standard by which all are judged. Women are valued for what they can do in comparison to what men can do, not for who they are. The world’s narrative fosters a culture in which men and women are urged to homogeneity. But God’s plan for men and women is not androgyny but complementarity. Steve’s work brings together the best of both biblical exegesis and social scientific research to fruitfully speak of men and women as different and yet still equal by emphasizing the following:
The differences between men and women should be stated descriptively rather than evaluatively…. Any comparison of a male trait with a female trait which judges that one is intrinsically better than another is distorted because it presumes an identity of role or function. For example, to deplore women’s “emotionalism” presumes that men and women are both “supposed to” express their emotions in an identical fashion. However, such a judgment is not possible if men and women are supposed to express their emotions differently, or if emotions are supposed to be expressed differently in different situations. (273-74)
Not only are men and women equal in dignity by virtue of their creation, they also equal in their contribution to their fallenness; they share responsibility for the fall in a complementary way. We can cast aside the idea that women are by nature seductresses, or that women are responsible for men’s struggle with the sin of lust, or that women are always victims of men’s wrongdoing. Adam and Eve share the responsibility for the fall, and it has hit all of their offspring, men and women alike. Likewise they are equal in redemption and destined to be co-heirs in the kingdom of God. “Woman functions in complementarity to man. She complemented him in the Fall, to the misfortune of the human race, and she complemented him in redemption, to the blessing of the human race. The former showed her weakness, the latter her strength” (144).
Finally, I have deeply appreciated, and frankly, needed to hear the way in which Steve’s articulation of complementarity of man and woman elevates women without denigrating men. I have found in some reflections of Christian femininity that woman seems to be elevated above man: woman is the true climax of creation, and is of greater significance in the redeemed life than man. Perhaps this stems from an attempt on behalf of womankind to balance out the experience of being denigrated time and time again. But there is a better way to understand this challenge, and Steve shows us clearly that a complementary view of man and woman is the approach most consistent with the Word of God, and the most beautiful approach for living together as men and women in reality – the vision we would do best to pursue.
Subordination in the Marriage Relationship
Onto the ever challenging topic of subordination! Steve’s exegesis of subordination takes great care to unpack different understandings and types of subordination to establish that in the Biblical understanding, subordination in the marriage relationship and Christian community assumes the equal value of women and men. He begins by establishing that subordination does not include an idea of inferiority in value.
The English word “subordination” means literally “ordered under,” and its Greek counterpart means almost the same. The word does not carry with it a notion of inferior value. A subordinate could be more valuable in many ways than the person over him or her. Nor does the word carry with it a notion of oppression or the use of force for domination. The word can be used to describe an oppressive relationship, but its normal use is for relationships in which the subordination involved is either neutral or good (13).
According to Steve, subordination in marriage includes the man taking a real responsibility for his wife before the Lord, for how he protects her (or doesn’t), how he relates with her, and even for how she acts. Her good is now his good. Certainly some people do not like the idea of men having some kind of responsibility for women, but I would personally find the alternative—if men had no responsibility to care for and protect the women they married and the daughters they raise—much more of a threatening position for women.
Finally, Steve’s explanation of whether subordination was part of God’s original design in creation, or fundamentally a result of the Fall is an important one. The summary of the view he puts forward as the most convincing provides the balance which many women need to hear:
Oppressive subordination between man and woman stems from the transgression and curse, marring the original form of subordination present in creation. According to this view, man should be the head of woman, at least in marriage, and was her head from the first moment of woman’s creation. However, because of the transgression and curse, man dominates woman and causes her pain through something that should have been a blessing to her (19).
Oppressive subordination is caused by sin. Original subordination in marriage is designed for the good of family unity, and subordination redeemed in Christ is the goal for Christian marriage. The good expression of subordination has long been missed and hidden for many Christians and non-Christians alike. Perhaps it’s good is so hidden, and requires so much hope, trust, and self-emptying on the part of both men and women, that few think it is possible to live and worth embracing.
Steve clearly understands the qualms women can understandably have with the prospect of subordinating themselves in a marriage relationship, and the misunderstandings which can lead men to abuse or abdicate their role of leadership in the relationship, and addresses them in such a way as to point out that God’s design is not the problem. His work on subordination here especially frees women to be women, without having to be rebellious, or always to place themselves in comparison to men. Understanding subordination has given me high expectations for how the men in my life will treat the women in their lives: with humility in any position of authority they hold, committing their strength to the service of others, and always with the good of the corporate body in mind, and at the expense of their own personal preference. If anything, understanding this has made me more grateful for men who are willing to take up the call to manhood which requires such courage and self-denial. Understanding biblical subordination has increased my respect for men who are courageous enough to serve others in roles of authority. It can be done, and can work in reality as it is taught in the scriptures, but it requires submission to Christ on the part of both the man and the woman, and any trace of the world’s distorted notion of authority and power will sabotage the whole thing.
Some assume that since subordination can be associated with the abuse of authority, that it necessarily always will be. I am honestly not sure how anyone could grow up in our society without a dysfunctional view of authority and subordination. Even if you were blessed enough to grow up in a home which modeled a biblical approach to authority, surely your experience in society and any glimpse into the
world of politics, commerce, and media will have done much to undermine and distort a proper understanding. The treatment of subordination in Man and Woman in Christ brings out the true meaning and hope that has been obscured by the world, the flesh, and the devil. It has also trained me to recognize abuse within a subordination relationship, to say “that is not subordination; that is abuse of power,” or “that is selfishness.” Subordination itself is not the problem; it is our sin that is the problem.
There are at least three other insights on subordination, to mention in brief, which I find to be extremely important for women, and for which I am very grateful to Steve for helping me to understand: (1) that the subordination relationship involves both men and women having ruling roles; (2) that the subordination relationship makes the family stronger, more united, and more able to be fruitful; and (3) that all women are not subordinated to all men, as some have misinterpreted the meaning of Biblical subordination to mean.
In my mission work, I attempt to convey these truths to university students. Steve’s exegesis of the meaning of the scriptural texts has helped me to do that. Without this help, I might have personally accepted the Scriptures at their word and surrendered myself to them, but lived according to it just out of obligation. Or possibly I just would not have considered marriage for myself. But without the help of this Scripture study, I would not have understood the good, the fruit, and the purpose of marriage and the complementarity of men and women, such that I could point others to it, live it joyfully, and encourage others in it. This account of subordination in marriage provides the foundation for the advice I find myself giving to women: “Don’t marry a man whose subordination to Christ you don’t respect and trust. Choose a man based on his subordination to Christ.”
The Irreplaceable Role of Women
Finally, Steve’s scripture exegesis makes clear that the Old Testament wife and woman of the home was a strong, capable ruler of the household. That was a completely new idea to me. It’s hard to say which era’s distorted and limited notion of women in the home most obscures this truth, but the reigning ideas of women in the home seem to be the 1950’s housewife stereotype, the weak and easily scandalized Victorian woman, or the modern woman who is a super-human perfect mother and successful CEO.
Steve’s description of the scriptural role of the wife in the household freed me from those stereotypes, and helped me to begin to understand the heart of the call of woman, which is not to be exiled to the home primarily because men don’t want women in the workplace, or because all that women are capable of is making and raising babies and washing dishes, or because women are so capable that they can and should do everything to make a household run. Instead, at the center is the vision of what the home should be, and what its place is meant to be in the church and society.
Steve offers a helpful analogy of a head and a heart as both essential and complementary organs in a proper functioning body to describe the interdependent and necessary roles of the husband and wife within the household:
This understanding of the husband’s and wife’s roles raises the question of how the old statement “a woman’s place is in the home” relates to New Testament teaching. The New Testament does indicate that the woman’s role in the family is primarily within the household. She is expected to rule the household. The picture of the wider pattern of social relations in the early church also indicates that the woman’s responsibility in the home entails her being in the home more than the husband. But the New Testament does not teach in any explicit way that the home is the only place the woman can be or serve. Moreover, the indications that the woman’s role is primarily in the household occur alongside indications that the household is a place of major service in the Christian community. If many of the educational, social service, and economic functions of the household have been removed, it does not automatically make sense to leave the woman behind so that she cannot take an active responsibility for these services. In order for her place in the home to have the significance it had in New Testament times, the home would have to be restored to its importance as a place of service (67).
As far as most households go in our day, managing a household is a much smaller production and responsibility than for the women of the New Testament era. Understanding that cultural difference makes recognizing the importance of both the wife and the household possible. When the household was the center of so much life and activity—serving as a hotel and a hospital, a tailor and farm, as well as the school and the apprenticeship—no person who managed that kind of domain would be bored or be considered unimportant and superfluous. Instead, the roles that women are normally called to take on require that they be strong, active, and competent; nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that women are or are expected to be weak, passive, and incompetent.
In the following passage which describes the role of the woman in the home, it is clear that the role is one that fulfills both concrete practical needs of the members of the household but also contributes to the building up of the wider community.
To summarize, the passages examined here illustrate some important elements in the role of the wife in scripture. The wife is the ruler or manager of the household. She is the heart of household life, ordering the life of the household and seeing that the needs of the people in the household are met. She takes an active responsibility for the affairs of the house and is expected to handle them competently. She rules the household in subordination to her husband, but she rules the household nonetheless. Within the household, her special concern is to see that the members of the household are served in their needs: fed, clothed, provided with what each needs to function well. She makes the household a home, a place where others are strengthened and refreshed. The wife is a source of strength to her husband and to the other members of the household because of her personal service to them. Finally, she is actively involved in what we call charity work. She serves the needy of the community either personally or by seeing that other members of the household provide help (41).
Not only then is the woman’s role extremely valuable in running the activity of the household, but it is when she is in the role of ‘the heart’ of the household that she cultivates a place for household members to be strengthened and refreshed. This can refer to physical strengthening and refreshment, but in the context it seems more to refer to spiritual, relational, emotional thriving. The wife is the source of warmth, the hearth within the home where members are drawn together, and find rest, shelter, comfort, and love.
What is a home without warmth? It is sterile and cold, not a home for a family who love one another, but a building where people stay and perform functions. Today we try so hard to make a house function well for a family if we can just get all the gadgets present and all the chores, meals, and tasks assigned or outsourced. It is here where we see the great loss it has been to society and family that the idea of ‘heart’ of the household has been weakened in our society by the departure of women from the homefront, into the world of full time work outside the home—to the detriment of family life, table fellowship, and culture.
It was through understanding this change in our social culture that I first began to realize the modern day situation that many of us experience and are easily drawn into that pressures a woman to abdicate her role from the home in order to fulfill the role of the modern working woman, the result of which is often that the home begins to have no heart, no draw, no culture, no life. No one wants to be there. It doesn’t produce fruit or play a valuable formative role in the lives of the people who live and grow up there.
Just as when men abdicate their role as leaders, fathers, and husbands, the wife and children are vulnerable to poverty, manipulation, and insecurity of basic needs, so when women abdicate the role of managing and ruling the household, the household simply ceases to exist as a valuable center of activity, and as a heart within a social unit, instead of a first school of love, as it is meant to be.
A favorite Chesterton passage which expresses this better than I can, says:
Those who believe in the dignity of the domestic tradition, who happen to be the overwhelming majority of mankind, regard the home as a sphere of vast social importance and supreme spiritual significance; and to talk of being confined to it is like talking of being chained to a throne, or set in a seat of judgment as if it were the stocks…. We cannot simply take it for granted that kings are humiliated by being crowned. We cannot accept it as a first principle that a man is made a judge because he is a fool. And we cannot assume, as both sides in this curious controversy do often do assume, that bringing forth and rearing and ruling the living beings of the future is a servile task suited to a silly person.3
Pope John Paul II also underlines the importance of women serving in the home, and exhorts modern societies to make this presence possible and valued:
Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the mother’s role, of the toil connected with it, and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother—without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as compared with other women—to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of the mission of a mother.4
In summary, Man and Woman in Christ has taught me, delighted me, and been a resource to which I will continue to return again and again to encourage me in my call as a daughter of God, and to help me encourage others in their call as sons and daughters of God.
Notes
3. G.K. Chesterton, “The Dignity of Domesticity,” Illustrated London News (Nov 16, 1929), cited in Dale Ahlquist, The Story of the Family (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2022), 216.
4. Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens (Sept. 14, 1981), 19. Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981) | John Paul II (vatican.va).
Top image credit: Illustration of Christian couples doing bible study. image created with digital paintbrush AI enhanced artwork from © Artstyles.com. Used with permission.